Opposing preventive detention as a threat to civil liberties and due process

Opponents of the proposed preventive detention and electronic monitoring measures warn that they could erode fundamental civil liberties without providing a clear improvement in security. While acknowledging the horror of the Berlin CSD attack, critics argue that detaining people based on a future risk assessment violates the principle of 'innocent until proven guilty.' This is particularly concerning in a country like Germany, which has a history of overreaching security legislation. The fact that Abdul B. was under surveillance but still attacked suggests that the problem may be more about intelligence gaps and resource allocation than a lack of legal tools. Civil rights organizations also point out that such measures could disproportionately affect marginalized groups, such as refugees or people with mental health issues. The debate over juvenile criminal law adds another layer: Abdul B. was under 21, and preventive detention for young people could conflict with the rehabilitative goals of the justice system. Furthermore, studies on similar laws in other countries have shown mixed results in preventing attacks, while often leading to overuse. Critics call for focusing on better intelligence sharing, more social work, and deradicalization programs rather than rushing to punitive measures. They urge lawmakers to resist applying pressure for swift action that could lead to flawed legislation with long-term consequences for personal freedom.